*Membership spots not really limited!

Outhouse Editor

doombug wrote:In Cooke's run we saw the Octopus twice, the first was in the spirit/batman crossover. the second time he was almost like a ghost that denny colt was trying to chase down and we see him from behind.

Outhouse Editor

doombug wrote:In Cooke's run we saw the Octopus twice, the first was in the spirit/batman crossover. the second time he was almost like a ghost that denny colt was trying to chase down and we see him from behind.

Staff Writer

Regardless, it wasn't a well-written run, which was a shame, because I was looking forward to it a lot at the time. Until I read New Frontier, I considered Cooke to be good artist but a poor writer, but it's just that he doesn't understand the Spirit.

Staff Writer

Regardless, it wasn't a well-written run, which was a shame, because I was looking forward to it a lot at the time. Until I read New Frontier, I considered Cooke to be good artist but a poor writer, but it's just that he doesn't understand the Spirit.

Staff Writer

Punchy wrote:Regardless, it wasn't a well-written run, which was a shame, because I was looking forward to it a lot at the time. Until I read New Frontier, I considered Cooke to be good artist but a poor writer, but it's just that he doesn't understand the Spirit.

Staff Writer

Punchy wrote:Regardless, it wasn't a well-written run, which was a shame, because I was looking forward to it a lot at the time. Until I read New Frontier, I considered Cooke to be good artist but a poor writer, but it's just that he doesn't understand the Spirit.

Staff Writer

Punchy wrote:No, Cooke is the one who does, as I have already said, the problem with Cooke's run was that it was a superhero comic.

yes I know you think that but it's not the truth at all. Lucky for us both I can go unrubber band the run (one of the many books i'm getting bound) and look through it real fast. I'll be back soon with a description of each issue.

Staff Writer

Punchy wrote:No, Cooke is the one who does, as I have already said, the problem with Cooke's run was that it was a superhero comic.

yes I know you think that but it's not the truth at all. Lucky for us both I can go unrubber band the run (one of the many books i'm getting bound) and look through it real fast. I'll be back soon with a description of each issue.

Staff Writer

doombug wrote:yes I know you think that but it's not the truth at all. Lucky for us both I can go unrubber band the run (one of the many books i'm getting bound) and look through it real fast. I'll be back soon with a description of each issue.

It's my opinion, from reading it, it seemed like a superhero comic, moreso than a crime or a pulp book or whatever.

Jesus, I didn't realise this run was some sort of Sacred Cow, I normally love Cooke, but it was no good.

Staff Writer

doombug wrote:yes I know you think that but it's not the truth at all. Lucky for us both I can go unrubber band the run (one of the many books i'm getting bound) and look through it real fast. I'll be back soon with a description of each issue.

It's my opinion, from reading it, it seemed like a superhero comic, moreso than a crime or a pulp book or whatever.

Jesus, I didn't realise this run was some sort of Sacred Cow, I normally love Cooke, but it was no good.

Outhouse Editor

Punchy wrote:No, Cooke is the one who does, as I have already said, the problem with Cooke's run was that it was a superhero comic.

WHAT FUCKING SUPER POWERS DOES HE HAVE IN THE FUCKING BOOK!!!!! HE# DOESN'T EVEN HAVE GADGETS SO YOU CAN'T EVEN GO THE BATMAN / BLUE BEETLE ROUTE.

HE FIGHTS BAD GUYS THAT IS WHAT PULP CHARACTERS DID. IT IS WHAT DOC SAVAGE DID, IT IS WHAT THE SHADOW DID, IT IS WHAT THE SPIDER DID, IT IS WHAT ALL OF THEM DID. ON TOP OF THAT THEY DID THEM IN FORMULAIC WAYS. I.E. YOU COULD TRANSPLANT ANY OF THEM INTO ANY OTHER'S STORY AND IT WOULD BASICALLY BE THE SAME... THAT IS WHAT PULP WAS, IT WAS CHEAP BASE ENTERTAINMENT WITH A NOIRISH EDGE.

IF YOU ARE GONNA TALK ABOUT SOMETHING YOU SHOULD AT LEAST HAVE A BASE LINE OF REFERENCE.

BATMAN IS A PULPY GADGET SUPERHERO THAT IS WHY YOU ARE SEEING SIMILARITIES THERE! HE IS AN AMALGAMATION OF A LOT OF PULP FUCKING HEROES YOU TWIT. BATMAN IS THE FUCKING SHADOW LITE. THE SPIRIT IS MUCH CLOSER IN TONE TO THOSE PULP CHARACTERS AND COOKE'S BOOK IS VERY MUCH LIKE THE STORIES THAT WERE TOLD IN THE PULP BOOKS.

YOU ARE WRONG ON ALL ACCOUNTS AND SHOULD RETHINK YOUR POSITION AT THE VERY LEAST AND POSSIBLY YOUR HOBBY!

Outhouse Editor

Punchy wrote:No, Cooke is the one who does, as I have already said, the problem with Cooke's run was that it was a superhero comic.

WHAT FUCKING SUPER POWERS DOES HE HAVE IN THE FUCKING BOOK!!!!! HE# DOESN'T EVEN HAVE GADGETS SO YOU CAN'T EVEN GO THE BATMAN / BLUE BEETLE ROUTE.

HE FIGHTS BAD GUYS THAT IS WHAT PULP CHARACTERS DID. IT IS WHAT DOC SAVAGE DID, IT IS WHAT THE SHADOW DID, IT IS WHAT THE SPIDER DID, IT IS WHAT ALL OF THEM DID. ON TOP OF THAT THEY DID THEM IN FORMULAIC WAYS. I.E. YOU COULD TRANSPLANT ANY OF THEM INTO ANY OTHER'S STORY AND IT WOULD BASICALLY BE THE SAME... THAT IS WHAT PULP WAS, IT WAS CHEAP BASE ENTERTAINMENT WITH A NOIRISH EDGE.

IF YOU ARE GONNA TALK ABOUT SOMETHING YOU SHOULD AT LEAST HAVE A BASE LINE OF REFERENCE.

BATMAN IS A PULPY GADGET SUPERHERO THAT IS WHY YOU ARE SEEING SIMILARITIES THERE! HE IS AN AMALGAMATION OF A LOT OF PULP FUCKING HEROES YOU TWIT. BATMAN IS THE FUCKING SHADOW LITE. THE SPIRIT IS MUCH CLOSER IN TONE TO THOSE PULP CHARACTERS AND COOKE'S BOOK IS VERY MUCH LIKE THE STORIES THAT WERE TOLD IN THE PULP BOOKS.

YOU ARE WRONG ON ALL ACCOUNTS AND SHOULD RETHINK YOUR POSITION AT THE VERY LEAST AND POSSIBLY YOUR HOBBY!

Last edited by thefourthman on Sat Dec 05, 2009 4:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Staff Writer

thefourthman wrote:WHAT FUCKING SUPER POWERS DOES HE HAVE IN THE FUCKING BOOK!!!!! HE# DOESN'T EVEN HAVE GADGETS SO YOU CAN'T EVEN GO THE BATMAN / BLUE BEETLE ROUTE.

HE FIGHTS BAD GUYS THAT IS WHAT PULP CHARACTERS DID. IT IS WHAT DOC SAVAGE DID, IT IS WHAT THE SPIRIT DID, IT IS WHAT THE SPIDER DID, IT IS WHAT ALL OF THEM DID. ON TOP OF THAT THEY DID THEM IN FORMULAIC WAYS. I.E. YOU COULD TRANSPLANT ANY OF THEM INTO ANY OTHER'S STORY AND IT WOULD BASICALLY BE THE SAME... THAT IS WHAT PULP WAS, IT WAS CHEAP BASE ENTERTAINMENT WITH A NOIRISH EDGE.

IF YOU ARE GONNA TALK ABOUT SOMETHING YOU SHOULD AT LEAST HAVE A BASE LINE OF REFERENCE.

BATMAN IS A PULPY GADGET SUPERHERO THAT IS WHY YOU ARE SEEING SIMILARITIES THERE! HE IS AN AMALGAMATION OF A LOT OF PULP FUCKING HEROES YOU TWIT. BATMAN IS THE FUCKING SHADOW LITE. THE SPIRIT IS MUCH CLOSER IN TONE TO THOSE PULP CHARACTERS AND COOKE'S BOOK IS VERY MUCH LIKE THE STORIES THAT WERE TOLD IN THE PULP BOOKS.

YOU ARE WRONG ON ALL ACCOUNTS AND SHOULD RETHINK YOUR POSITION AT THE VERY LEAST AND POSSIBLY YOUR HOBBY!

Staff Writer

thefourthman wrote:WHAT FUCKING SUPER POWERS DOES HE HAVE IN THE FUCKING BOOK!!!!! HE# DOESN'T EVEN HAVE GADGETS SO YOU CAN'T EVEN GO THE BATMAN / BLUE BEETLE ROUTE.

HE FIGHTS BAD GUYS THAT IS WHAT PULP CHARACTERS DID. IT IS WHAT DOC SAVAGE DID, IT IS WHAT THE SPIRIT DID, IT IS WHAT THE SPIDER DID, IT IS WHAT ALL OF THEM DID. ON TOP OF THAT THEY DID THEM IN FORMULAIC WAYS. I.E. YOU COULD TRANSPLANT ANY OF THEM INTO ANY OTHER'S STORY AND IT WOULD BASICALLY BE THE SAME... THAT IS WHAT PULP WAS, IT WAS CHEAP BASE ENTERTAINMENT WITH A NOIRISH EDGE.

IF YOU ARE GONNA TALK ABOUT SOMETHING YOU SHOULD AT LEAST HAVE A BASE LINE OF REFERENCE.

BATMAN IS A PULPY GADGET SUPERHERO THAT IS WHY YOU ARE SEEING SIMILARITIES THERE! HE IS AN AMALGAMATION OF A LOT OF PULP FUCKING HEROES YOU TWIT. BATMAN IS THE FUCKING SHADOW LITE. THE SPIRIT IS MUCH CLOSER IN TONE TO THOSE PULP CHARACTERS AND COOKE'S BOOK IS VERY MUCH LIKE THE STORIES THAT WERE TOLD IN THE PULP BOOKS.

YOU ARE WRONG ON ALL ACCOUNTS AND SHOULD RETHINK YOUR POSITION AT THE VERY LEAST AND POSSIBLY YOUR HOBBY!

Staff Writer

Look, if it will calm you babies down, I will re-read my copies of Cooke's run over Christmas and see if I am just misremembering it. But I still maintain it was uninspired, Batman-lite and the antithesis of what Will Eisner would have wanted.

Staff Writer

Look, if it will calm you babies down, I will re-read my copies of Cooke's run over Christmas and see if I am just misremembering it. But I still maintain it was uninspired, Batman-lite and the antithesis of what Will Eisner would have wanted.

Outhouse Editor

Not really, Beetle and Batman get grouped that way because that is what super hero fans want to do with them and because they work in conjuction with Superheroes. Pulp Heroes were the forerunners to the modern superheroes. Much of SUperman is taken verbatum from Doc Savage. The science fiction angle and the powers are what differientiated him.

Batman was an attempt to make a more pulpy hero in response to the Golden age power fest. It is one that endured.

The Spirit acts like a pulp hero in Cooke's run and like a comedic superhero in Sergio's run.

It's not even the fact that you disliked it that gets to me. I could care less whether you think Cooke's run is great. It matters not to me, but you could at least fucking try to understand that the argument you have given over and over is ridiculous. It shows a complete lack of understanding of the character and the history that went into his creation.

You have also continually accused Cooke's run of things that are much more prevelant in the Aragones run that you claim is so much better.

You are showing ignorance and being a fucking twit. And quite frankly pissing me the fuck off. How about you read and respond to the rest of the post as opposed to "YOU CAN BE A SUPERHERO WITH OUT POWERS" bullshit or your Cooke did this three times shit, when more than one person who has read the book multiple fucking times tells you he hasn't. At the very least, you look like an ass because that is where you are talking from.

No, I don't think The Spirit is as good as New Frontier or Hunter. But is a great fucking book and a perfect homage to what Eisner did and your arguments show that you are the person who doesn't understand the character and even more blatantly (and to be honest, more worrisome to me) a lack of understanding of the medium you claim to love and a complete and utter disrespect for its history and roots.

You sound like a hipster twit in the shop. The kind of guy who talks about a movie no one else has seen in his peer group, but the guy next to him in the coffee shop is snickering at, because it is obvious from his description and analysis that HE himself has never bothered to see the movie.

Not really, Beetle and Batman get grouped that way because that is what super hero fans want to do with them and because they work in conjuction with Superheroes. Pulp Heroes were the forerunners to the modern superheroes. Much of SUperman is taken verbatum from Doc Savage. The science fiction angle and the powers are what differientiated him.

Batman was an attempt to make a more pulpy hero in response to the Golden age power fest. It is one that endured.

The Spirit acts like a pulp hero in Cooke's run and like a comedic superhero in Sergio's run.

It's not even the fact that you disliked it that gets to me. I could care less whether you think Cooke's run is great. It matters not to me, but you could at least fucking try to understand that the argument you have given over and over is ridiculous. It shows a complete lack of understanding of the character and the history that went into his creation.

You have also continually accused Cooke's run of things that are much more prevelant in the Aragones run that you claim is so much better.

You are showing ignorance and being a fucking twit. And quite frankly pissing me the fuck off. How about you read and respond to the rest of the post as opposed to "YOU CAN BE A SUPERHERO WITH OUT POWERS" bullshit or your Cooke did this three times shit, when more than one person who has read the book multiple fucking times tells you he hasn't. At the very least, you look like an ass because that is where you are talking from.

No, I don't think The Spirit is as good as New Frontier or Hunter. But is a great fucking book and a perfect homage to what Eisner did and your arguments show that you are the person who doesn't understand the character and even more blatantly (and to be honest, more worrisome to me) a lack of understanding of the medium you claim to love and a complete and utter disrespect for its history and roots.

You sound like a hipster twit in the shop. The kind of guy who talks about a movie no one else has seen in his peer group, but the guy next to him in the coffee shop is snickering at, because it is obvious from his description and analysis that HE himself has never bothered to see the movie.